Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913) would add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to existing federal hate crimes laws. It would also strengthen enforcement of these laws by allowing the US Department of Justice to assist local authorities in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes cases. The bill is identical to the hate crimes legislation passed by the House of Representatives in 2007 and is transgender-inclusive.

13 comments:

Anonymous
said...

First of all I have nothing against gay people. It's not even on my radar. Having said that... Hate crimes legislation is completely retarded. There are already crimes against assualt and battery. Passing new laws to deal with old laws that aren't being enforced is ridiculous. What makes you think those new laws have any more chance of being enforced than the old laws they're meant to suplant? If you want to fix this problem then stop voting for well connected idiots and vote in people who aren't afraid to prosecute the police. Passing laws that make it a crime for you to think a certain way most certainly isn't the way to go.

Anonymous #2: My friend, you need to take a course in logic. No where and at no time did I (Anonymous #1) say that you should be able to act on your feelings of bigotry. Are there "hate crimes" against straight people? Do we need them? Prosecute crimes that are already on the books and "hate crimes" legislation wouldn't be needed. I also noticed that although you say "You have it all wrong" you don't offer a single reason why I'm wrong. Can you offer a credible reason why? Saying that crimes against gay people happen every hours isn't a reason. Crimes against straight people happen every few seconds. You need to stop using emotion to reason and try to look at facts objectively. You clearly haven't done any critical thinking on the matter.

Yeah... I get that. You've still failed to state a single reason that blacks/gays/straights/latinos/martians/whomever deserve some special recognition under the law that doesn't already exist. Assualt is assualt whether its to get your wallet or b/c you have red hair.

Certainly it's special recognition. If a group of gay men (to pull an example out of the air) where to assult me b/c I'm straight what hate crimes would be on the books to address that situation. And, of course, the answer is that there wouldn't be. So why create a new, special class of crime (that has no constitutional merit btw) when there are already statutes on the books to address that behavior? And so far not a single person here has offered a credible reason why that should be the case other than your indignation.

We have an epidemic of people being attacked based on sexual orientation, and gender identity. People are not being attacked for being straight, although if you one was, that would also be protected under sexual orientation. Hate crimes legislation is critical, it's not the same as a random person being attacked, this is a specific crime against a group of people and that is pre-meditated and deserves more penalty.

How, other than your implication to the contrary, is it ANY different than being targeted randomly? So is it your position that if someone beats the crap out of you b/c you're gay that it is somehow more egregious a crime than if someone beats the crap out of me just for kicks?! If someone assualts you, for any reason, there are already laws on the books to address that. There is absolutely nothing critical about it other than your claim that it is. Can you explain to me how it is anything other than charging someone twice for the same crime? People are stupid. And trying to enact a law to keep people from being stupid is... well... stupid. So while I do genuinely feel for people that have to put up with this nonsense there are already laws against acts of violence regardless of their motivation. And, once again, other than your indignation at the prospect no one has offered a single reason why the current statutes against acts of violence are insufficient outside of it offends your sensabilities. So being gay, black, from Mars... whatever doesn't entitle you to special process under law. Is someone who hassles you for being gay an asshole? Of course. But there aren't and shouldn't be any laws against being an asshole. For if there are... then we are all doomed. LOL!

If someone beats you up randomly, it is random and is likely because they don't like you as an individual. If someone hates a whole group of people, they need a more severe penalty otherwise they will go target more of that group, as it is not random and they had the people in mind.

Why? And what do you offer in evidence to support your contention? Certain countries enact a death penalty for drug use. Do those laws stop drug use? So what evidence do you cite in support of your contention that a more severe law is preventative? C'mon people... step up to the plate. So far all I'm hearing is "Because!". And that isn't a credible reason.

Mark what would you propose be the penalty? I think hate crimes are needed, it isn't just the individual targetted but a fear that permeates throughout the whole group in society. A hate crime unlike other crimes is meant to scare an entire population.